The titled Senior Citizen Complainant Sh. Gurmohinder Singh Kahlon (75 years in age) aggrieved at settlement of his Car-Theft Insurance-Claim on Non-Standard Basis @ 75% of the IDV of Rs.18 Lac has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite party insurers (namely: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited) seeking release of the balance held-back amount of Rs.4,51,500/- with interest besides compensation and cost of litigation etc. The complainant has been the owner of Mercedes Make Car E-250 CDI; R.C. No. PB-10-CX-0002 and had got it comprehensively insured with the OP insurers at an IDV of Rs.18 Lac vide Policy # 3001/147747778/00/B00 valid from 13.04.2018 to 12.04.2019. Somehow, the said Car was stolen on 03.02.2019 and the related Theft-Claim (Total-Loss) was filed with the OP insurers duly supported by the requisitioned documents etc. However, the OP insurers settled the Total-Loss Claim @ Full IDV Rs.18 Lac on Non-Standard Basis @ 75% IDV and paid/credited Rs.13,48,500/- on 15.02.2021 in the complainant's account; addressing the reason that the requisitioned information pertaining to the Stolen-Car and its previous owners could not be provided, in totality, by the complainant as some of the these (as per the complainant) were stolen along with the Car (lying in its Glove compartment). The complainant, through his consistent efforts, could manage/ arrange the balance papers/information and provided these to the OP insurers who however refused to pay the retained portion of the total-loss theft-claim on the pretext that the same stood settled, in full & final, on Non-standard Basis @ 75% of the IDV of the insured Car and thus prompted the present complaint seeking directives to the OP insurers to pay/release the beheld/ non-released 25% portion amounting to Rs.4,51,500/- of the impugned-claim along with interest besides a sum of Rs.1.0 Lac as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation, in the interest of justice.
2. The complaint is accompanied with the listed-documents as hereunder:-Ex.CW1/A - Affidavit (Complainant) deposing contents of the complaint; Ex.C1–Certificate of Insurance cum Policy Schedule; Ex.C2–Orders JMIC, Batala accepting the Untraced Report; Ex.C3–OP Letter dated 01.04.2020 requisitioning documents; Ex.C4–Bank A/c Statement exhibiting credit of Rs.13,48,500/- on 15.02.2021; Rejoinder to the OP written statement; Ex.C5–By way of application for Addition Evidence–Copy of Letter to C.E.O. of all General Insurance Companies. In Ref. IRDA/NL/CIR/MISC/173/09/2015 dated 24.09.2015; directing them not to withhold claim amounts where the liability and quantum gets established and 'discharge voucher'/'settlement intimation voucher' shall not close the claim and the balance shall stay 'outstanding' in their books; Application for leading additional evidence (16.09.2022); Ex.C6–Form 24 – Car Previous Owners as per the RTA, Gurdaspur; Ex.C7 – Dispatch Letter dated 18.08.2020 to the OP insurers; Ex.C8 – RTGS 7.0 Lac to the previous owner; Ex.C9–Courier Receipt dated 20.08.2020; Ex.C10–Aadhar - previous owner Deepak Mudgal: 5922 2345 5108; Ex.C11-Aadhar
- previous owner Veena Sharma: 5585 1343 9127; Ex.C12-Ex.C13-Ex.C14–Vacation of previous Financier's Lien over the R.C.; Ex.C15–Aadhar – present owner Gurmohinder Singh: 4953 1880 4318;
3. The titled opposite party, in response to the commission’s summons/notice appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement/reply stating therein preliminary as well as other objections (on merits, as well) as:
4. That the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has neither 'cause of action' nor 'locus-standee' to file the present complaint. And, there has been 'No deficiency in Service' on their part. In fact, the complainant failed to provide the details of the 'purchase' of the stolen-car and thus the theft-claim was resolved on 'Non-standard' basis @ 75% IDV and Rs.13,48,500/- were duly paid/credited to his bank account on 15.02.2021. On merits, the same objections/pleadings, as above, are repeated and lastly the OP insurers have sought dismissal of the present complaint and have also filed the listed documents (along with the duly Sworn Affidavit Ex.OPW1/A by Sh. Rohan Mishra Authorized Signatory) in evidence as: Ex.OP1 – Copy of Affidavit of Consent 27.01.2021 by the complainant; Ex.OP2–Copy of Letter of Consent 21.01.2021 by the complainant; Ex.OP3–Copy of Affidavit 22.01.2021 Theft of Car; Ex.OP4 – Copy Letter 18.08.2020 to OP insurers; Ex.OP5 – Copy RTGS Rs.7.0 lac to the previous Owner/
Seller.
5. We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides, on points of law, and have also thoroughly examined the records with requisite care and caution on the points of fact, as placed before us. We are also inclined to examine the inference it’s ‘scope n spread’ on account of some documents ignored to be produced/not-produced during the course of the present proceedings.
6. We observe that the OP insurers' prime objection/ pleading has been that the details of the past/previous owners of the stolen-car along with some other requisitioned information were not readily made available to them by the complainant and thus they had settled the theft-claim on non-standard basis @ 75% IDV (Insured Depreciated Value) and paid the claim proceeds of Rs.13,48,500/- on 15.02.2021, in full and final settlement, with the affirmative consent of the complainant had first in writing/deposed through the duly sworn affidavit.
7. We however discard the OP insurers' above pleadings/arguments, being in total contravention of the laws of natural justice. The information pertaining to the past owners of the Car was accessible (on-line, also) with the D.T.O./R.T.A., Gurdaspur; and, so were others and moreover the elderly complainant had himself managed/arranged/forwarded the requisitioned information/papers to the OP insurers and has also produced/placed on the records of the present proceedings.
8. We are of the considered opinion at the face of the evidenced-facts as available on the records that there’s have been an unfair display of its superior/dominant position by the OP Insurers in settling the theft-claim on non-standard basis and that too @ 75% IDV and that clearly amounted to deficiency in service on the OP insurer's part and as such the impugned ‘non-resolve/non-reply/ silence’ on the OP insurer's part over the status of the with-held back/non-released balance of the impugned insurance-claim, in question, had been unwarranted, arbitrary and unfair; neither in accordance with the provisions of the statutory law nor in conformity with the sanctity of natural justice, equity and good conscience. Further, it has violated with impunity the preferred statutory consumer rights of the elderly complainant causing him much physical harassment, mental agony and financial loss in his advanced peaceful life. Lastly, we hold the insurers guilty of statutory misconduct amounting to ‘unfair trade practices/deficiency in service’ and thus liable to an adverse award under the provisions of the governing statute. However, the OP insurers in order to pay the impugned theft-claim shall be at liberty to procure certified copies of the requisite document(s), if any, from the records of the present complaint, in accordance with the prescribed rules.
9. In the light of the all above, we order the opposite party insurers to pay the balance 25% (Rs.4,51,500/-) of the impugned claim @ the policy's full IDV of Rs.18 Lac with interest @ 6% PA from the date of complaint (till paid in full) besides Rs.20,000/- in lump sum as cost cum compensation within 45 days of receipt of the certified copy of these orders otherwise the aggregated award amount shall attract an additional interest @ 3% PA from the date of the orders till realization, in full.
10. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
11. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (B.S.Matharu)
OCT. 20, 2022. Member.
YP.
